Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray; and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host - by the Power of God - thrust into hell, Satan and all the evil spirits, who prowl throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.

Universalis, your very own breviary in pixels...

Wednesday, 15 June 2016

We need to have a conversation about this. We cannot solve problems until we know their root, and we cannot know the root of a problem unless we examine it and discuss it.
WHAT CAUSED THIS?

It was being brought up by hate-filled parents.It was homophobia.No, it was easy access to assault weapons,The government didn't keep good enough tabs on its citizens.No, the government is oppressing us by keeping tabs on us and our guns.Not enough care available for the mentally ill.The problem is the PC refusal to recognize dysphoria and deviance as disordered and in need of care.Militant Islam that seeks to destroy its enemies

¿Por qué no todos ?

Why can't they all be discussed? why must conversation be shut down on any of these possibilities? why are people so afraid of what they will find?
You, crazy ACLU lawyer-types - I'm willing to discuss it.
You think Christianity is to blame, that if Christians didn't advocate for traditional marriage and resist being told they must recognize and even serve activity they regard as an abhorrent sin the Orlando gunman would not have behaved as he did, that my praying for you is one cause - wanna discuss it? wanna tell my how prayer is hateful?

Monday, 13 June 2016

What hicks we were!
Little did I know that what he suggested was possible.!

Earlier this month, a professor at Santa Monica College led students in an ‘EcoSexual Sextravaganza’ in which participants ‘married the ocean.’Amber Katherine, a philosophy professor who helped organize the May 14 event, explained to Campus Reform that the purpose of the “wedding” was to bring about a deeper love for the planet through “ecocentric passion and even lust.”
The ceremony began with ... a former SMC student, proclaiming to those gathered at Santa Monica Beach that “today we stand upon this holy earth and in this sacred space to witness the rite of matrimony between the sea and us all.”Next, leaders of the event distributed rings to the students, announcing “with this ring, I bestow upon the sea the treasures of my mind heart and hands—as well as my body and soul. With the power vested in us, we now pronounce you ‘married to the sea.’”

Oh.
Or would that have been a mixed marriage? I mean, the body is what? about 60% water? But alas, no root beer at all...

A mug like that.....? Forget that mug and find another, One of your own kind, Stick to your own kind!

I cannot be the only one who mused fondly on some less-than-competent liturgical music programs from ones past or present this morning during the Responsorial Psalm, and thought, hmm.... good thing we don't often sing much of the Mass on weekdays.

Thursday, 9 June 2016

“A wedding party where no wine makes the newlyweds ashamed, imagine you finish the wedding party drinking tea!’ Francis said, noting, “The wine is necessary to the party.”

Actually, I think it was a bit warm for tea, I may have had Diet Coke. Pretty sure Himself had coffee. Saw no reason to make the evangelical neighbors and the alcoholic in-laws uncomfortable or in need of fabricating a polite excuse for beating a hasty retreat from the reception.

“You have this priestly class of professors who aren’t doing a whole lot of work, supported by a system dedicated to convincing people to buy indulgences and amass enormous debt for the dubious salvation that a diploma represents.”

But the latter, Gawker is.... well, Gawker.

I think I'll just concentrate on a journey where the path to Virtue and Rectitude is better marked - who gets my vote in the 2016 Presidential Election.

Sunday, 5 June 2016

What does it mean to "conserve," to wish to "conserve"?
Could we say that sometimes the opposite of "conservative" is "neglectful" or even "destructive"?
If you disparage others as "scrupulous," are you saying it's better to be "negligent"?
Is the opposite of "nostalgia-hankering" perhaps "novelty-chasing" or "trend-infatuated"?

If you insist on setting yourself apart from those you deride as "pro-life," what does that make you? How would you like to identify yourself, vis a vis your position on "life"?

And what does it say about a Catholic who

When you speak of opinions outsiders may have of the Church, do you say, "They are known for the...." when it is aspects which you condemn or disavow, but ask "What do they say about us now?" (The way in '50s sitcoms when Junior drove Mom crazy she'd ask Dad, "What do you think YOUR son just did?")

Just wondering....
As Santayana said, or at least should have,

Those who fail to appreciate history are doomed to be embarrassed when they look back on the present.

A bit of hubbub of late over some ordained persons' calling out of some unordained persons, in some cases by name, (one of said ordained persons being in the habit of threatening unordained persons with civil lawsuits,) following the unordained persons having called out other ordained persons by name, some consecrated persons by name, and even, in several cases, an installed person whose name is... well, known to virtually the entire world.
Some of all of this is deserved, other instances are unfair, some of it is bullying and clericalist, some of it is barking mad.
Hardly is anyone in these wars ever 100% wrong, there are often good reasons, up to a point, and very often, perhaps usually, good intentions. (We must assume that last, until the assumption is proved wrong.)
Even the ill-intentioned will begin with the reasonable and kind and inarguable.
Sometimes people give themselves away, of course, frequently by overplaying a hand,
Ah ha, the observer says to himself, I was with you up till now, you first point was undeniable and laudable but I see now that that was merely a set-up to this balderdash, an attempt to lull us into amiability so you could sneak in some poppycock.
Man cannot keep himself from Going Too Far.
Been discussing the failed 1998 translation a great deal with a friend lately,
While I admit there are some clunky moments in the one in use today, I overall drastically prefer it to the rejected one.
But there are other words and phrases spurned by TPTB that I would have endorsed, and more, endorsed the agenda behind them - but the reformers, as so often, went too far.
They knew, they had to know, that eventually, when push came to shove the Catholic Church was not going to allow the Anglophone Catholic Church, no matter how many of us like to think of ourselves as an autonomous sect, NOT to say, "I believe," and "and with your spirit," and "for you and for... many," (I actually think they could have sneaked that one in with "THE many.") Perhaps not on this go 'round, but eventually, and couldn't we finally have a few decades of liturgical calm now?
(Oh, and for the record, sometimes clunky is waaaaaaay better than curt.)
I digress.
Anyway, the Rad-Trad fringe has a lot of right on its side, and honest, it is possible to decry the feminization of ministry, and see it as a wedge issue for the impossibility that looms so large in the spiralist agenda*, the ordination of women, without despising women. (I promise you, I am not a self-hating gyno-American.)
But likewise, it would be easier to believe die-hard traditionalists oppose women in Holy Orders on loving theological grounds is so many of them did not openly display such contempt for women. Protestations that no, of course not, women are not held in less regard by the Church would be so much more credible if Aquinas hadn't said we were “deficiens et occasionatus”, if so many functions besides the confection of the Eucharist were not reserved to priests, and oh, yeah, the priesthood is reserved to men.

A contributing factor in the social recognition of the role of women is a greater appreciation of their responsibilities in the Church: their involvement in decision-making, their participation in the administration of some institutions and their involvement in the formation of ordained ministers.

Well, yeah.... it could be.
And it could have been.
For centuries.
And the longer it took the Church, it still takes Her, to come 'round, the harder it is to believe that Her denial of the presbyterate to women isn't just part and parcel of Her denigrations and ignoring of other charisms woman might have to offer Her and all of mankind.
Anyway, among the much criticized bloggers, there's a fellow who in a newish thread is arguing against "sacramental trans-genderism,"
Good for him, good turn of phrase, and he's right, mostly.
But he can't let a side comment go without answering it with this stupidity:

universal suffrage was one of the worst ideas in human history. Personally, I'm all for head of household landowners being the only ones allowed to vote. They have the most skin in the game.

That's right.
Not everyone who is entitled to vote knows what he's dong, so let's limit it.
Oooh. Interesting.
How?
I.Q. test?
Determining the potential voter's logical acuity or moral fiber?
No.
By wealth and ownership of material goods.
And he caps it off with the inanity about "skin in the game."
Um, no. LITERALLY wrong.
His ideal voter may have capital staked, he may have moneyon the game, but we each of us, literally, have one, our own, skin in the game.
His idea is as contemptible as the idiot's in the UK who think young people's votes should count more than that of their elders in the BREXIT referendum, since they'll probably live longer with the consequences.
-------
(*Those who hold it might prefer the phrase "progressive agenda," but it aint' progress when you're going around in circles.

The idea that schools need to somehow “make” girls interested in [science, technology, engineering and mathematics]... reaffirms the social narrative that STEM is a prestigious boys’ club that girls must break into, and a girl’s intelligence is only validated once she excels in one of the more complex “boy subjects.”...
the STEM obsession is less about equality and more about masculinity.
[A female economist muses] "what does it say about me, as a staunch feminist, if I’m relying on masculinity to convey my worth?”
The underlying belief, whether STEM advocates realize it or not, is that traditionally male-dominated fields are more valuable to society than those that have traditionally appealed to women.... a field’s overall pay drops when women enter it in greater numbers. ...
Society simply undervalues jobs once women start doing them.

Do you think the rest of the editorial staff will finally see the clericalism of which they are guilty, that it is the notions THEY float that contribute to the denigration of not just women's roles, but all roles and offices proper to the laity?
Will they promote the Church's understanding of apostolate?

Friday, 3 June 2016

Yes, of course, we've all read about it in the past few months.
We know, you know, 'cause people study it.
And they study it, since, umm... it's bad. right?

Kristin Holland, a behavioral scientist at the Center for Disease Control, believes there are multiple factors contributing towards the increase in suicide rate, and mental health is only one of them.
“Many people view suicide as a mental health problem, but many people who die of suicide do not have a mental health problem. It’s a public health problem,” she said.
According to Holland, the economic recession of the late 2000s and the increase of substance abuse are some of the factors leading to more frequent incidents of suicide.
The report also says that the increase in suicide rate was higher among females (45% increase) than males (16% increase), narrowing the suicide rate gap between the two genders.The report also states that for women, the highest percent increase in suicide rates was among those ages 10–14 (200% increase)

Hmm....
How can that be, when we as a society are telling them it's wrong? I mean, we are, aren't we? We wouldn't romanticize it, or celebrate those who commit it or encourage it, or anything like that, would we?

Is it possible that in the modern world suicide is most acceptable, as long as you meet certain standards of education, class or beauty?